[roccman]

Link

The potential consequences [of oil shortages] are so serious that governments are drawing up emergency plans to cope should the worst happen. According to one analyst who took part in a simulation of just such a crisis, the situation most experts fear is what they call a "psychological avalanche".

***Expensive fuel at the pumps is just the start. These battles over the price of oil could be the harbinger of something even scarier. There is a growing realisation that we are teetering on the edge of an economic catastrophe which could be triggered next time there is a glitch in the world's oil supply.***

***A number of converging forces are making such an event more likely than ever before.***

***Here's what happens. A small, distant country one day finds it can no longer import enough oil because of a spike in prices or problems with local supply. The news media whip this up into a story suggesting an oil shock is on the way, and the resulting panic buying by the public degenerates into a global grab for oil.***

*****Most industrialised countries keep an emergency reserve as a first line of defence, but in the face of worldwide panic buying this may not be enough. Countries in which the oil runs out face transport meltdown, wreaking havoc with international trade and domestic necessities such as food distribution, emergency services and daily commerce. Without oil everything stops.*****

***The IEA, which advises 27 countries on oil emergencies, requires its members to hold at least 90 days' worth of fuel, which can be pooled and released onto the market if a crisis looms. The system last swung into action in 2005 when hurricane Katrina caused the shutdown of more than 23 per cent of the US's oil production capacity. A few days after Katrina struck, the IEA ordered the release of 2 million barrels a day from reserve stocks for a month, the first time reserves had been released since the Gulf war in 1991.***

***A fleet of 4000 tankers plying six main routes delivers more than 43 million barrels of oil every day. Many of these routes pass through narrow "choke points", and if any of these were to become impassable, even temporarily, the effect on oil supplies could be dramatic.***

***One scenario being suggested is that hijackers might commandeer a liquid natural gas tanker plying one of these shipping routes, load it with explosives and use it to ram an oil tanker. If this floating bomb produced a burning oil slick, it could render the passage impassable for months, tipping the global economy into crisis as alternative routes would fail to make up the lost supplies.***

***Another key element in the global oil infrastructure is Abqaiq, an enormous processing facility in Saudi Arabia, which removes sulphur from two-thirds of the country's crude. The CIA estimates that seven months after a large-scale attack, output would still be only 40 per cent of its full capacity.***

*****"It is hardly conceivable that the world could function without oil"*****

Nothing new - the ramming tanker thing is cool...we could watch it unfold like a hurricane...3 days out...2 days...1 day...

Or maybe not...maybe we could scramble jets to sink it...naw...we don't do the scramble thing any more...(ref:911).

[Narz]

THE FINAL WARNING

Really Rocc? You're gonna give up on us like that?

[ROCKMAN]

I'm not sure roc says he's giving up...are you? He did paint a picture of a possible future. Perhaps a future close to a worse case scenario. But then worse case scenarios do happen from time to time. I don't think one can lay credible odds on this possiblility or that. Too many variables with the biggest, IMO, being the race between PO and demand destruction in the short term.

I grew up in New Orleans and saw first hand humanities reactions to such stress...both good and bad. The worse case PO future would produce a stress level among hundreds of millions of folks that would exceed those post hurricane periods by orders of magnitude. I'm not a doomer by anymeans but it's hard to ignore possiblities even if they're not probabilities.

[roccman]

THE FINAL WARNING

Really Rocc? You're gonna give up on us like that?

Nope Narz - as long as I can stand I am in it for the long haul.

It will be interesting to see how people here react to a 500mph bone crushing thud that have not taken the time to at least explore a mad max world.

Fact is - 7 billion cannot live on this planet at one time.

And the reason it is a fact - is because we are seeing marginal effects from resource depletion in our cozy little corner of the universe while others (Darfur, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Argentina, Mexico, Bangledesh) are literally dropping off the planet.

Yet - for some odd reason - most of use choose not to explore realities beyond our own fish bowl.

Does not matter - this will not be a voluntary inquistion for fish bowl dwellers...at some point reality is gonna hit one square bewteen the eyeballs...at that "ahaha" moment...it will be too late.

I may need to switch to my alternative profile if I lose a bet with specop regarding the presidential selection...but roccland is far more of a doomer than I ever have been and the time will be about right for all of us to prepare to go back to roccland.

[vision-master]

Gotta stock up on some more corned beef hash.

[lionstones]

[RedStateGreen]

That article actually mentioned peak oil production.

[NevadaFrank]

Lets hope large scale production of the electric car can reduce consumption enough to reduce demand. After all, $4 per gallon dropped consumption by 3.7% and oil is way down. The impact of conservation cannot be underestimated.

[Opies]

Lets hope large scale production of the electric car can reduce consumption enough to reduce demand. After all, $4 per gallon dropped consumption by 3.7% and oil is way down. The impact of conservation cannot be underestimated.

Oil didn't drop 25$ because of a 3.7% reduction in US gasoline consumption...

What is underestimated by some can be overestimated by others

[JoeW]

Lets hope large scale production of the electric car can reduce consumption enough to reduce demand. After all, $4 per gallon dropped consumption by 3.7% and oil is way down. The impact of conservation cannot be underestimated.

Oil didn't drop 25$ because of a 3.7% reduction in US gasoline consumption...

What is underestimated by some can be overestimated by others

Then why did the price drop $25? Please enlighten those of us who still believe in these silly things called supply and demand that set prices.

[yesplease]

Other OECD countries also cut consumption and the non-OECD countries reduced their growth in oil consumption. America's reduction in consumption is just indicative of the drop in world consumption seen w/ higher prices.

[TreebeardsUncle]

Really. This doesn't sound like much to worry about, just more paranoid ramblings of isolate, hostile, misanthropic, conspiracy theorists. Yes, there are a lot of things that can go wrong from political upsets, to weather, to plant malfunctions due to lack of maintenance. Many buying ops will present themselves. Note that the article still sees problems from a political point of view, particularly the usual zero sum game competitive mindset.

[JohnM]

Fact is - 7 billion cannot live on this planet at one time.

In the waters between China and Japan there are these bigass jellyfish called Nomura's jellyfish. They can weigh up to 220 kilo's and are up to 2 meters long.
From what I've read and heard, the current population estimates of these big jellyfish are 9 billion or more, in that area alone.

If 9 billion jellyfish that are in general bigger than humans, can live in such a small area, why can't 7 billion human's live spread throughout the whole world? I can think of two reasons, the current economic system under which we live won't and can't allow it, and the fact that so many people want the "American dream" lifestyle. But other than that, I don't see why it's not possible.

And no, I actually do hate communism, it's even worse.

[yesplease]

Yeah, most of the 2-10 billion cannot live on the planet sustainably tend to assume the American "standard of living", which ironically enough seems to be based on material/energy consumption, not stuff like happiness, health, or even wealth for the most part.

Apparently, a society with more efficient personal and fright transportation, intelligently constructed homes and places of work that need little if any energy for climate control, much fewer externalized costs via pollution/congestion/etc, and the like have lower standards of living even if the average person lives longer in a much cleaner environment while having to work less w/ more leisure time and a better education.

A sustainable future is clearly quite horrible w/ the drop in standard of living and whatnot.

[burtonridr]

Fact is - 7 billion cannot live on this planet at one time.

In the waters between China and Japan there are these bigass jellyfish called Nomura's jellyfish. They can weigh up to 220 kilo's and are up to 2 meters long.
From what I've read and heard, the current population estimates of these big jellyfish are 9 billion or more, in that area alone.

If 9 billion jellyfish that are in general bigger than humans, can live in such a small area, why can't 7 billion human's live spread throughout the whole world?

That is a horrible relation to draw.... Jelly fish are nothing like humans.

Your answer to why 7 billion people cannot survive on this planet at once without manipulation(manipulation being the key here), is that there is not enough land that can be farmed(with the use of traditional farming techniques), combine that with the amount of energy that is input into the production of food by oil....

I'm not totally convinced that it cant be done, however I'm not sure it will be done without a massive loss of life first.

Consider this, it takes something like 10 carbons during the production, transportation and storage of food to produce 1 carbon of food that you eat. I'm not sure on the exact number or measurement of energy used.. however it does accurately show just how much energy is used to produce food. The energy source being oil, so if you take away the oil you basically can only produce 1/10 the amount of food as before.

Now this does not mean we will see a drop that dramatic, the use of aquaponics, horticulture and other less energy consuming high output food production techniques are sustainable. However, not many farmers are making that shift yet.